This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 05/25/2022 at 00:19:30 (UTC).

Contreras et al. v. Danneco Construction & Services

Case Summary

On 11/18/2021 Contreras filed an Other lawsuit against Danneco Construction Services. This case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, Second Appellate District located in Statewide, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***6813

  • Filing Date:

    11/18/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Appellants

Rafael Contreras

Vilma Contreras

Los Angeles, CA 90033

Respondent and Defendant

Danneco Construction & Services

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Appellant Attorney

Ayinde Adisa Jones

2504 E Cesar E Chavez Ave

Los Angeles, CA 90033

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/25/2022
  • DocketDescription: Mail returned, unable to forward.; Notes: From Rafael Contreras - remittitur

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2022
  • DocketDescription: Case complete.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2022
  • DocketDescription: Remittitur issued.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2022
  • DocketDescription: Petition for review denied in Supreme Court.; Notes: The petition for review is denied. [S273105]

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2022
  • DocketDescription: Supreme Court order filed re:; Notes: The time for granting or denying review in the above-entitled matter is hereby extended to and including May 10, 2022, or the date upon which review is either granted or denied. [S273105]

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2022
  • DocketDescription: Service copy of petition for review received.; Notes: Contreras

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2022
  • DocketDescription: Returned document for non-conformance.; Notes: Appellants' Requests to Waive Court Fees submitted Feb 9, 2022 via truefiling has been rejected. This appeal was dismissed on Dec 28, 2021.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2022
  • DocketDescription: Substitution of attorneys filed for:; Notes: Attorney Ayinde A. Jones substitutes out as counsel of record for appellant Vilma Contreras. Appellant is now self-represented.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2022
  • DocketDescription: Substitution of attorneys filed for:; Notes: Attorney Ayinde A. Jones substitutes out as counsel of record for appellant Rafael Contreras. Appellant is now self-represented.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2022
  • DocketDescription: Returned document for non-conformance.; Notes: Appellants' Motion to Vacate Dismissal submitted Feb 4, 2022 via truefiling has been rejected. This appeal was dismissed on December 28, 2021. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b), the decision became final on January 27, 2022 - 30 days after filing of the order of dismissal.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2022
  • DocketDescription: Letter sent to counsel re:; Notes: The clerk received and filed on January 24, 2022 appellant's motion to vacate the court's dismissal and reinstate appeal. An examination of the motion reveals that it was submitted by appellants instead of their counsel Ayinde A. Jones. If counsel no longer represents appellants, counsel must file either a substitution of attorney or a motion to withdraw in the reviewing court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.36(b)-(c).) The motion to vacate the dismissal and reinstate the appeal is stricken as not having been filed by counsel of record.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2022
  • DocketDescription: Motion to vacate dismissal filed.; Notes: Appellant's motion to vacate dismissal.*Filing canceled per court's Jan 26, 2022 notice*

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2021
  • DispositionDescription: Dismissed per rule 8.100(c); Disposition Type: Final

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2021
  • DocketDescription: Appeal dismissed per rule 8.100(c).; Notes: It appearing that the appellant is in default pursuant to Rule 8.100(c), California Rules of Court, the appeal filed November 18, 2021, is dismissed. In addition the Court notes that appellant has also failed to file a Case Information Statement. (2DCA/APP-004)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2021
  • DocketDescription: Returned document for non-conformance.; Notes: Appellants' documents submitted on Dec 22, 2021 were rejected. Appellants are represented by counsel. All parties are required to file documents electronically. (CRC, rule 8.71 (a)). You may resubmit your filing via TrueFiling.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2021
  • DocketDescription: Appellant's notice designating record on appeal filed in trial court on:; Notes: notice filed 12/2/21 for NOA 11/18/21 - appellant proceeding without RTs;

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2021
  • DocketDescription: Default notice sent-appellant notified per rule 8.100(c).; Notes: No fee received

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2021
  • DocketDescription: Notice of appeal lodged/received.; Notes: Appeal filed on November 18, 2021 by Rafael Contreras et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2021
  • DocketTrial Court Name: Los Angeles County Superior Court; County: Los Angeles; Trial Court Case Number: 20STCV23049

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where DANNECO CONSTRUCTION & SERVICES INC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer JONES AYINDE A